US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

[ginjawarrior]

GIANT FART.....................................

2 times in one day? keep it up doer your posts might jump a level from raw sewerage

 

[Doer]

specious ***yawn***

Let's have the specious, 3rd yawn from the loser today.

Come on. Yawn again to complete your stupid.

 

[Harrekin]

hmm
1 an interdisciplinary, international group of scientists whose work all pointing to a similar conclusion

or
2 a right wing conservative american think tank funded by big oil

yeah which one of them is biased and has no qualms about giving out false information?

Yet, one uses evidence and the other hyperbole.

The IPCC being the latter, since you're obviously a bit slow.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Yet, one uses evidence and the other hyperbole.

The IPCC being the latter, since you're obviously a bit slow.

The NIPCC is a joke. They're 'fueled' (pardon the pun) by companies like ExxonMobile, and you wonder why they oppose the overwhelming evidence in support of climate change?

Laughable.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

hmm
1 an interdisciplinary, international group of scientists whose work all pointing to a similar conclusion

or
2 a right wing conservative american think tank funded by big oil

yeah which one of them is biased and has no qualms about giving out false information?

#1 is funded by government agencies with no bias!

Of course getting more taxes isn't bias. How else are you going to get your free lunch! I won't tell your secret if you don't.

 

[Wavels]

The NIPCC is a joke. They're 'fueled' (pardon the pun) by companies like ExxonMobile, and you wonder why they oppose the overwhelming evidence in support of climate change?

Laughable.

The so called evidence in support of the increasingly laughable ACC hypothesis is politically driven and farcical at best.

Fraud is the operative word.

Money and power, and the acquisition thereof, is all that this foolishness is about.

Science left the building long ago!

 

[Beefbisquit]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

All these researchers are obviously company shills, that just want money....

When all is said and done, virtually all climate related research papers that have been produced, support the idea of ACC. There can be 1,000,000 groups that deny the actual data, but science is not a democracy.

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Consensus is totally scientific. The fact they feel the need to mention that fact all the time makes it more legit!

 

[Beefbisquit]

Consensus is totally scientific. The fact they feel the need to mention that fact all the time makes it more legit!

When there is data that all confirms the same hypothesis, it's a consensus based on facts and observations.

A right wing think tank fueled by big oil companies that ignores the overwhelming evidence (see above) for climate change, is not legit.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

When there is data that all confirms the same hypothesis, it's a consensus based on facts and observations.

A right wing think tank fueled by big oil companies that ignores the overwhelming evidence (see above) for climate change, is not legit.

But but, I thought liberals bitch about government gets corrupted by corporations? BP's largest moneymaker is now alternative energy research.

Ok, Big Oil is evil. So you convinced me. Fuck alternative energy!

 

[Wavels]

The simple invocation of "consensus" is inherently unscientific.

Money and power and the desperate governmental acquisition thereof is what this whole farce boils down to.


Like it or not, climate change happens with, or without mankind's assistance.

The Earth's climate has changed repeatedly well before the very existence of Man, it will continue thus long after Man ceases to exist.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

The simple invocation of "consensus" is inherently unscientific.

Money and power and the desperate governmental acquisition thereof is what this whole farce boils down to.


Like it or not, climate change happens with, or without mankind's assistance.

The Earth's climate has changed repeatedly well before the very existence of Man, it will continue thus long after Man ceases to exist.

Do you have the scientific consensus data to back up your claim?

 

[Wavels]

Lol...good point Mr. Rabbit.

 

[Beefbisquit]

In any scientific study, if the evidence is overwhelming in support of the hypothesis, a consensus on the hypothesis isn't a bad thing. An unwavering consensus that doesn't change with the introduction of new and compelling evidence, is bad.

 

[Wavels]

In any scientific study, if the evidence is overwhelming in support of the hypothesis, a consensus on the hypothesis isn't a bad thing. An unwavering consensus that doesn't change with the introduction of new and compelling evidence, is bad.

The motivation of those constituting the IPCC and similar groups is simply governmental largesse.

Science is not employed in their endeavors.

You have been duped.


The computer models have all been demonstrably proven bogus. Virtually no warming for the past 14 to 16 years.


Faith is in play here. Not science.

 

[Beefbisquit]

The motivation of those constituting the IPCC and similar groups is simply governmental largesse.

Science is not employed in their endeavors.

You have been duped.


The computer models have all been demonstrably proven bogus. Virtually no warming for the past 14 to 16 years.


Faith is in play here. Not science.

You are claiming virtually every climate scientist in the world is lying. You're also claiming that virtually all climate scientists that have produced their own research are falsifying their data....

There have been countless posts showing the data, but somehow, you just 'claim' it's false and wash it away all the while, failing to present any reason as to why it's false, other than, whackjob conspiracy theories.

The scientists you're claiming are telling the truth are demonstrably fueled by the companies that have the most to lose if serious climate change legislation were enacted.

Where are all these reputable scientists that claim global warming is a hoax?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

The climate changes on earth. No one denies that.

What is in contention is if man is causing it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't forget this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/


Or these guys:

http://nipccreport.org

really, the heartland institute?

there is just no point in trying to have a debate with racist idiots like antidis. try to learn from history you fetid pile of failure.

 

[UncleBuck]

The climate changes on earth. No one denies that.

What is in contention is if man is causing it.

that's not really in contention unless you listen to the idiots at the heartland institute, in addition to being an idiot yourself.

because only an idiot would listen to the same group that got paid to carry water for tobacco companies, and are now doing the same for oil companies.

 

[UncleBuck]

The so called evidence in support of the increasingly laughable ACC hypothesis is politically driven and farcical at best.

Fraud is the operative word.

Money and power, and the acquisition thereof, is all that this foolishness is about.

Science left the building long ago!

the only politically driven fraud fueled by money and power where science left the building is the heartland institute idiots like you keep citing.

you'd have to be willfully ignorant of very modern history to turn a blind eye to theit shit and keep on eating that steaming pile.

just give up already. you're relying on the heartland institute. that's fucking low.